Juan Ameen
Four-storey block to dwarf Windsor Terrace quaint houses - façade to be kept intact
The quaint row of houses in Windsor Terrace, Sliema will be dwarfed by a new block of flats after the planning authority yesterday approved a four-storey block.
The planning authority issued a full development permit to transform 75, Windsor Terrace into four-storey apartments and a penthouse. The developer was given permission to demolish the interior of the building on condition that the full façade is kept intact.
Environmental group Flimkien Għal Ambjent Aħjar regretted the decision made by the Malta Environment and Planning Authority.
The height was one of the project's main points of controversy as it was in conflict with the local plan, which lays down that buildings in the area cannot exceed two storeys. The developers based their arguments on the approval of the outline development permit, which was granted in July 2006, just before the plan came into force.
Before the local plan was approved, there were no set limits and the height limitations were established only on the area's predominant streetscape.
FAA spokesman Astrid Vella said other applicants had been consistently refused permission to build more than two floors in other parts of Windsor Terrace, even in appeal stage. "Yet, now, this previously scheduled streetscape of seven untouched, identical town houses will be ruined," she said.
Ms Vella pointed out the irony of Mepa's decision, which came soon after an initiative to strengthen protection in urban conservation areas.
In December, the Mepa board had postponed the decision on the full development permit primarily because a proposed garage would have breached the condition to retain the original façade in its entirety.
The applicant was asked to submit fresh plans for a four-floor apartment block and penthouse in the middle of a row of traditional, two-storey townhouses.
The Sliema local council and the FAA had objected to the development because the original plan had included a garage which, they said, would ruin the streetscape. In fact, the garage was removed from the revised plans and the development will have to retain the full façade.
The issue of Windsor Terrace dates back to November 2004 when the first outline application was submitted and later refused. A second application was approved in July 2006, overturning a recommendation for refusal. The full development permit had also been recommended for refusal and additional points were discussed in December.
Popular Stories
Update 3: Woman found dead in car,...
Updated: Woman dies in car crash
Part of Dwejra 'Azure window' collapses
The end of the bar that ‘never closed’
Carm Mifsud Bonnici resigns after...
Bundy does not know whether to...
Updated - Jason Micallef demands...
This WAS the night - Kurt makes it...
Petrol price up 6c
In Discussion
Updated - Jason Micallef demands...
Gozo tunnel could take 5-7 years to...
CABS remote controlled aircraft shot...
Joseph Calleja condemns portrayal of...
Carm Mifsud Bonnici resigns after...
Updated: Labour would give...
CABS drone shot down
Second group of migrants arrives
Adrian Vassallo in scathing...
13 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Vincent Gauci
Feb 7th 2009, 08:34
The comments below clearly show the difficulty in "reforming" MEPA. It is just impossible to please one and all.
Mark Seychell
Feb 6th 2009, 22:30
What is happening to all those abandoned houses we have? Oh, that's right, I forgot the government is (seemingly deliberately) allowing them to gather dust. Perhaps we should turn them into national landmarks?
Ray Montebello
Feb 6th 2009, 17:04
Sliema is now built up to many more storeys than the old two. One cannot allow some to build up to nine storeys (on the front), others to build to four or five (many parts of internal Sliema including most of the street where Windsor Terrace lies) and others (who had decided not to build in the past when they would have obtained the permits very rapidly) not to be able to build at all. I know Sliema very well and I can assure anyone that many people who complain about new building are the ones that have built up to four/five storeys long ago and who are now complaining that they will lose 'their' views. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Those who built up so many storeys in the past should not complain if their neighbours do likewise.
Mario Ebejer
Feb 6th 2009, 15:52
At last, MEPA has called FAA's bluff and allowed the owners here to build as most of their neighbours have done in the past. Windsor Terrace has long ago been built to four storey heights and even higher. The owners of the last few houses (about five) that remain undeveloped cannot be discriminated against simply becuase they did not decide to develop before. What FAA wanted would have been a travesty of justice as it would have discriminated against those who had not developed their buildings before and in favour of those who built before them. FAA was definitely wrong on this one. Behind this block there are the houses on the front - up to nine storeys high. What FAA wanted was that the flats on the front enjoy views to the north AND to the south over Windsor Terrace whereas these Windsor Terrace houses would not have been allowed even half the number of storeys of the front. Well done MEPA.
paul busuttilo
Feb 6th 2009, 14:35
Dear Editor, what happened to my blog ?
Ray Sultana
Feb 6th 2009, 14:19
An absolute disgrace! Most cities around the world protect rows of houses to maintain visual harmony in the streetscape, yet we destroy one of the few rows of houses left in Sliema. It seems that the 'old' Mepa is back and that nothing has changed. Shame on you who approved this permit, you have a lot to answer to, not just to this generation, but to future ones as well. Another monument to greed and incompetent planning.
Rita camilleri
Feb 6th 2009, 13:44
What is MEPA's job???? to ruin or protect from ruin, cause I am getting confused...... oh yes ok now I get it, they are hell bent on runing Sliema and I am not repeat not being sarcastic ...
Karen Zammit Manduca
Feb 6th 2009, 13:06
What a shame!
I'm sure it will look really beautiful to have a block of flats right in the centre of a seven-row terrace of typical old townhouses. Excellent planning!
Paul Barrett
Feb 6th 2009, 12:15
This does seem a little bit daft.
Retaining the facade and doing up the internal parts - fine but then to destroy the rest of the effort and approve a 4 story block with penthouse without garage space in an already overcrowded area short on car parking space is really not the way to go.
I do hope that they will at least insist on a functioning well and not continue the current practice of turning a blind eye to this (legal) requirement.
john fenech
Feb 6th 2009, 12:11
What is the point of having a plan for the protection of urban conservation areas if a precedent is set which could be cited by other parties! On the other hand what is the scope of keeping the facade features which will be in contradiction to its height.
While it is true that free market is the epitome of capitalism it is also true that this lead to the present market crisis!
a. sciberras
Feb 6th 2009, 11:31
We already destroyed the Sliema-St julians front. Slowly slowly we are destroying the townhouses in the backstreets and it seems we will not be happy until all disappear! Shame on MEPA.
Astrid Vella
Feb 6th 2009, 11:04
May I add a clarification re: "Before the local plan was approved, there were no set limits and the height limitations were established only on the area's predominant streetscape."
Before the 2006 Local Plan there were very firm height limitations set by the Draft Local Plan map. The Structure Plan clearly indicated that pending ratification of this Draft, it was to serve as the guiding principle and that no differences in heights etc that would violate the intended final version should be allowed. The final version of two storeys was known to the DCC when it granted a permit of 5 storeys on this site.
paul busuttil
Feb 6th 2009, 09:51
Mepa proves to be weak and inconsistent yet again, I wonder why ?